D&D 5E "Damage on a miss" poll.

[ForeverSlayer]

Do you not understand how this attitude displays complete scorn and contempt for those that don't agree with you. Thanks for making it easy to make my decision.

You shouldn't make your decision based upon what I think about it.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Wait...What?

And you dont think that changes made to D&D rules, hell, RPG's in general DONT have their origins in house rules from peoples home games? This sort of thinking is EXTREMELY narrow. I dont care for 4E but as a system I can appreciate the design that went into it. And I dont think that house rules aka rules that are made to suit a particular group are a cancer. That's a dire statement and just another way of pointing and declaring BADWRONGFUN.

Nobody is talking about BADWRONGFUN here. First and foremost, I am a consumer and I don't want a repeat of 4th edition. This has nothing to do with edition warring and I don't want to give the devs the impression that these types of mechanics are "A-Okay". Certain types of mechanics tend to creep their way into other aspects of the game to the point where if you don't want it, you have to rewrite the whole game. What happened to this modularity stuff we were told about?

I don't like these types of mechanics and since the game is still in the building phase, I feel like this is the best time to get my point across. Stop with the "edition warring" and "badwrongfun" cards. You don't have to like what I like but trying to paint me as a trouble maker so you can have this thread closed is not on.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I favor misses with weapons being treated as actual misses-- so I voted "scrap it". But your poll options are pretty terrible here, in that they ascribe reasoning to the "like it" or "don't like it" answers. Many people might like the mechanic despite finding it unbelievable, while others might find the idea reasonable but still hate the mechanic. I'm pretty sure you're going to get weird results because people often don't vote for "my answer for the wrong reason" poll choices.

That said, I'm not of a strong mind either way on this one.

EDIT: No offense intended by my criticism- just trying to help dial in your methodology for next time.

I will take that into consideration next time.

Cheers.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Nobody is talking about BADWRONGFUN here. First and foremost, I am a consumer and I don't want a repeat of 4th edition. This has nothing to do with edition warring...

I love when edition warriors say "I don't want a repeat 4e"...but this has nothing to do with edition warring.

Priceless.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I love when edition warriors say "I don't want a repeat 4e"...but this has nothing to do with edition warring.

Priceless.

That's not edition warring. Edition warring is saying one edition is better than the other. I love it when people try and make arguments about something they aren't.

"Damage on a miss" is a 4th edition mechanic and it's one of the things that identify the edition. I don't want a repeat of that.

 

[Paraxis]

Damage on a miss is a great rule, it is in 4th edition D&D and 13th Age I love both of those games and want this to be a core ability of a core class in D&D Next.

I want a repeat of a lot of stuff found in 4e.

 

[Sound of Azure]

I voted "I don't care either way", though that's not entirely accurate. I don't have an issue with the mechanic as it stands, or the idea of dealing damage on a miss. As it stands though, it's bound to be controversial. One of the compromise ideas in the other thread was good: If you select the option you deal Str mod on a miss, but only if you miss by less than 5, and never on a 1. I don't mind an enemy being defeated on a miss if it satisfies those conditions. I also approve of the idea of other options for each fighting style. That way, if you still don't like the idea, you can choose another thing, aside from the other fighter options that already exist.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Oh yes, because 12 people not liking something is a great reason to remove it.

Neither is 12 people liking something a good reason to include it.

 

[herrozerro]

Neither is 12 people liking something a good reason to include it.

True, so this poll really has no reason for existing.

 

[Valdark]

I haven't voted because my option isn't listed.

While I am firmly against the mechanic but it should be optional for those who like it.